Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 17

< December 16	December 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. It is a hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley (MTV series)[edit]

The only source that I can find for this is a blog. Possible hoax.Schuym1 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Cusato[edit]

This DJ does not seem to be notable. All the websites I could find about him (including the ones given as references) are either his own webiste, amateur sites, or sites selling records mixed by him. The fact that the issues raised by the tags have not been addressed in nine months does not help, either. Goochelaar (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources out there which would provide verifiability and indicate notability. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Houselog[edit]

I can find no trace of Matt Houselog or his show in IMDB or Google (except on social networking sites) and no notability has been cited in the article. I suspect a hoax. Here because speedy has been contested. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google shows no more than a facebook page. Non-notable anyway, hoax or not. The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax If you look at the assertions in the article, you'd think there'd be more than 1 google hit. I have googled it, and there are more hits, however, none of them include what is claimed in the article (EX. academy award, teacher of the year) that should be obvious if googled. Also fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Very promotional actually, might get deleted per CSD:ADVERT ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE! It has way too many problems (orphaned, hoax, uncategorized, and no citations) and it might even meet A7, according to my knowledge. This guy is not significant! K50 Dude ROCKS!
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, and even a G3 vandalism speedy. Academy award winner? Teh googles thinks not.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G3 added, as it is pure vandalism. — neuro^(talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vittra[edit]

No evidence of notability, nearly no context, no links... The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was nominated less than 12 hours after it was changed from a redirect (to “Vittra (album)”) to a company stub. The case presented against it by the nomination is therefore simply inappropriate. —SlamDiego_←T 23:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If no one expands the article further, renominate for deletion.The Locke (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 19 hits on Google news for Vittra in the past month, all apparently in Swedish. There's no translation bar for me. If someone could get them translated, they appear like they would do the trick for achieving notability and the article could also be expanded.Silverseren^C 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One must be wary, because “vittra” is an ordinary, everyday Swedish word (with surprising meanings), as well as the name of the firm. —SlamDiego_←T 03:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (researches) Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, that could complicate things. Still though, that doesn't mean all the news articles are unaffiliated. Does anyone have the capability to translate them? Silver seren^C 03:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. It took me a couple of minutes to find a good source that has been syndicated across many US publications. Such educational companies are analogous to school districts in the US which are always kept. TerriersFan (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, AFD notice placed by banned user, no prejudice to someone boldly redirecting (AFD not required for that). NawlinWiki (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia article[edit]

Non-notable, original research, only one source, feeble attempt to expand on dictionary definition. Nubile Servant (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect I would think a redirect to what a encyclopedia article is (as in wikipedia policy) or redirect to encyclopedia, and or Article (publishing) would be better. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Noian. The Locke (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to encyclopedia. Graymornings_(talk) 11:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warmcut[edit]

Disputed PROD. An admitted neologism, no sources apart from Urban Dictionary. While I find the term interesting, it fails WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP, and apart from UD, there appear to be no relevant Google hits. Acroterion _(talk) 23:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found that discuss this neologism (I've had a brief look myself but can find nothing). Wiw8 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, possibly WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:MADEUP, WP:HOAX ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO The Locke (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and my PROD. In particular, urbandictionaries is user generated content, so it can't be used to verify this article. --Amalthea 04:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is, as they say, not even a thing. Graymornings_(talk) 11:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it appropriate to WP:SNOW this yet? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard conditions. Borderline speedy. Delete already. Graymornings_(talk) 10:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Best Album[edit]

Speedy delete: WP:Crystal and fails WP:MUSIC (Moon) and (Sunrise) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though BoA is a notable artist, the article has no references to support that it is even going to be released. Rtyq2 (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Special Best Smash with the crystal hammer (upcoming album). MuZemike (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deletion under criteria G7.

Bloody Rage[edit]

Does not meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet notability guidelines for web content. Matt (Talk) 22:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bloody Rage has not been included in any independent sources, and has not won any awards. According to WP:WEB, most content on websites like YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, and Newgrounds are usually not notable enough for their own article. Rtyq2 (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the general notability guideline due to no reliable sources coming from a search. Someone another 02:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I apologize. I'm the culprit behind this damnable article. If I knew how, I'd delete it myself. I forgot, all articles related to Yu-Gi-Oh the abridged series were removed, but stuff like that is permitted on sites like Yu-Gi-Oh wiki. This site is much stricter that way and I was up at 12:00 when I wrote it. Delete it plz and I'll be lucky not to go to Hell or get banned for this. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ghostkaiba297[reply]

Don't be daft, nobody wanders onto WP and is able to 'get' its complex nature straight off or even that quickly, it's an ongoing learning process. If nobody bothered to create and add to articles then there'd be nothing for anybody to read, so don't apologize or feel you've done anything wrong, thanks for trying. Someone another 09:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanx. I'm going to make sure not to add anything like Yu-Gi-Oh the Abridged Series or One Ring to Rule Them All (a flash video by Legendary Frog) or Potter Puppet Pals or anything like that. And to tell you the truth, the only reason I got an account here was to change part of an article that had a bit of misleading information. The concerned.ca article, where it said for the Stay Fit commercial that three kids were chasing an ice cream truck. I've seen the commercial, I even have it on tape, and there are four kids, not three. One of them is just offscreen most of the time. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ghostkaiba297[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied A7. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Mile[edit]

Does not meet notability criteria for inclusion.

Also Hannah Williams (musician)

Can someone can help me properly add it to this AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability presented in either article. Appears to be unsigned band with self-released recordings. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 both, absolutely no assertation of notability, very little effort put into either article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7. Neither assert notability, per TenPoundHammer. Matt (Talk) 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megatron (Beast Era)[edit]

This version of the character Megatron does not establish notability independent of Beast Wars through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the current coverage in Megatron#Beast Wars is enough detail on this version of the character. TTN (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is getting rediculous. TNN just keeps randomly nominating fictional character for deletion, and this is clearly a major fictional character, appeared in 2 different TV shows, comic book by 5 different publishers, been spotlighted at toy conventions, had over 2 dozen different toys made, been the subject of numerious bootlegs, parodies, and is voiced by a famous cartoon voice actor, David Kaye. Mathewignash (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not completely ridiculous in what you consider to be nomination of various fictional characters, as per usual treatment of fiction, only major characters belong on wikipedia, minor ones can be mentioned in the "list of _____ characters" articles, but do not warrant their own article. WP is not a repository for fictional plot, or a place for indiscriminate information ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a MAJOR character though, which is why I don't get it. Mathewignash (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with being major or minor in the work of fiction. Real world coverage is all that matters. This specific character does not establish that it is independent from the original version through real world information, so it does not require an article. TTN (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erb? Are you saying his reason for deletion is actually a reason to redirect and that the redirect will be useful in some way as a likely search term? Hobit (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1], [2] both seem relevant. Given the rather large number of shows, books and (soon?) major film, seems likely significant sources exist. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first one does not mention this character at all (this is separate from the main Megatron, which is certainly notable), and the second one is an overview of the series. Neither helps assert notability for this character. TTN (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I never expected to see one of these articles that actually could be a stand alone article, rather than just part of a merged combination article or list, but it seems this meets the requirements in terms of sourcing. i've been advising merging consistently,but I guess there are some rare exceptions--not thta thsis a reason to let down our standards on the others. DGG (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Article could use a little work, but it's relevant enough to warrant a separate article. Graymornings_(talk) 11:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the standards for inclusion. Nom is full of bunk, as usual, and will probably merge regardless of the outcome of this discussion yet again. Vodello (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Beatle (Film)[edit]

Unfilmed, unreleased movie that does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). The only references are fifthbeatlemovie.com and the Internet Movie Database. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete copied word for word from their facebook, which may or may not be a CV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the page appears to be edited to not be a copyvio any more, still the article is crystalballery about a movie that may or may not be filmed who's only source is the film's website itself and does not pass WP:NF. Delete, it can be recreated if it becomes notable in the future.--kelapstick (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this film meets WP:NFF. Has been deleted before as The Fifth Beatle (film). PC78 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting criteria of WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FRS healthy energy[edit]

Unnotable drink made by an unnotable company and lacks sources. Lp1234 (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seem to be quite a lot of hits for it in web searches, but most of these seem to be things like blogs and spam. There aren't reliable secondary sources which have been published by third parties, such as articles, which would verify any claims. Until we have that, this is just another random product. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copied comments by article creator Geoff ^T ^C 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This energy drink clearly has notability. When other drinks such as Red Bull get their own articles, I think this drink deserves its fair share. I will only accept arguments from those who are confirmed to not work with beverage companies. --Chinese3126 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been a while since the tag is put up, I request that this page remain. --Chinese3126 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"

Talk:FRS healthy energy

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V. I concur that a Google search fails to find reliable secondary sources. I copied Chinese3126's comments to ensure that all viewpoints appear in this discussion. (For whatever it's worth, I don't have any interest in any beverage or food company and don't care one way or another -- I'm only interested in whether the article is truly notable and based on verifiable, third party sources. My recommendation for deletion is based solely on those criteria.) Geoff ^T ^C 17:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Bjegovic[edit]

Deleted three times in the last few days. Regarding the "Hall of Fame" claim, there's no indication what this means. At http://bly.com/blog/general/the-copywriters-hall-of-fame/ some writer gave his list of the best copywriters, which didn't include this person, and someone left a comment opining that he's one of the best. Who's Who In The World has no bearing per WP:Notability (people). —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from the ambiguous hall of fame claim, article doesn't assert notability. Matt (Talk) 22:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article has been repeatedly created after CSD (3 times, I believe). No verifiable notability, references or indication that the subject would meet WP:BIO. --Oliver Twisted 23:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mas Flow 3[edit]

Non-notable future album, per WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. SummerPhD (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, per WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was revert to disambiguation page. While I normally wouldn't close a deletion debate so early, it's clear that this article is not going to be kept and I see no evidence that another four days of debate will change the outcome or help the project. However, the page can be a completely legitimate disambiguation page. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard[edit]

Being a director of a very minor company that never traded and is now being wound up is not notability.

However, we now get to put David in the stocks and pelt him with non-notable tomatoes. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being regularly quoted in the press concerning activities at a very popular web site (ie Wikipedia) is enough to justify keeping this, IMHO. He's clearly considered important by the UK press. And, yes, I am considering the need to avoid self reference. I don't think it applies here. JulesH (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to disambig version as kingturtle tried to. I would support a closing of this AfD; pretty unnecessary, and should be a foregone conclusion. GlassCobra 20:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Revert to disamb version. Kingturtle (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikimedia UK isn't notable enough for it's own article, so being a director of a defunct/not yet/incorporated/in limbo project doesn't assert notability. rootology (C)(T) 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/revert. "Being regularly quoted in the press concerning activities at a very popular web site (ie Wikipedia) is enough to justify keeping this." NOT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm sure I can do something with this, to make it very interesting, possibly up to FA staus. Looking at the basic material, there seems little of interest her. Giano (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the disambig page and if necessary protect it. What next, an article on Kelly Martin? No-one outside Wikipedia/Wikimedia will ever care who he is, and those who do are perfectly capable of reading his userpage or any WP:BADSITE of their choice. (Plus, the photo currently used on this article is awful. If this article is kept, I'm sure someone can find a more appropriate picture to illustrate it.) – iridescent 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or revert to the dab page - this is silly. --B (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Giano and WP:EATYOUROWNDOGFOOD -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page and for crying out loud, can we stop poking each other with sticks for a while? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to Disambig: this page was more distinguished in its disambiguate role—now it just appears to be fanboying of Wikipedia itself. To quote DG himself "User:David Gerard, [..] is not notable, just noisy". If DG starts to be noisy and notable then I suspect he'd probably voluntarily step down from the role of being an (intentionally) faceless spokesperson for Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject justs meets the GNG IMO. RMHED (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "IMO" is a rather poor argument for AfD. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside from the muliple refs from reliable sources, and that's without even mentioning his interview on the Radio 4 Today programme or Channel 4 News. RMHED (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - … neither of which actually document one single fact about M. Gerard xyrself. M. Finkelstein talks about practicing what one preaches. What we here at Wikipedia preach is that everything must be verifiable and article topics must be notable. So please practice that. Sources which provide not one single fact about the subject at hand do not make for verifiability, and provide zero basis for building an article about a person's life and works. Sources documenting a person's life and works do that. What we have here is almost an outright "coatrack" article. As Friday says, what the sources actually document is Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable beyond wikipedia - the interviews etc are all publicity related and have far less weight. (dab again after deletion) Viridae ^Talk 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having an article of a Wikipedia editor, is tricky stuff. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources, sure, but they're all about Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that someone whose visibility relates to periodically being quoted as an unofficial "spokesman" for Wikipedia (assuming there are no other activities worth noting) has about the same level of significance as someone who periodically writes a column for, say, The Guardian (applying the same assumption). Perhaps we should yoke the result to Seth Finkelstein; keep both or delete both. --Michael Snow (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would indeed apply the exact same standards - If David Gerard would declare that he had absolutely no confidence in the Wikipedia process to keep a biography free from libel and defamation, that he had a well-founded fear that a Wikipedia biography would be a tool in smear campaign against him by those who wished him ill, that Wikipedia vandalism and trolling would be a source of constant personal grief, that it would all be an attractive nuisance to anyone with a grudge - then I would most charitably respect his wishes and change my !vote to "Delete". I'm perfectly ideologically consistent there. But it is my impression that he feels somewhat differently about the quality of Wikipedia. So I would also respect his wishes there, not being so arrogant to believe my circumstances form a universal imperative. Am I mistaken in my understanding of his view about Wikipedia quality? If so, I beg correction. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't presume anything either way about his views, as they have no bearing on my comment. In fact, even the assumptions I did make are reasonably easy to argue against. Rather, my thought was about how those who make themselves frequently available in the media must deal with the visibility that results, and beyond some point public figures can no longer decide to be visible only in places of their choosing. Where to position either one of you in those terms may not be obvious, but I'm at least confident that you're in a similar place. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If "his views, as they have no bearing on [your] comment", then you're way, way, behind the state of the art - so much so as to be shockingly unfamiliar with the debates on this most sensitive topic, given your status in the Wikimedia Foundation. The wishes of the subject are a major part of reforming WP:BLP policy. When you suggest "keep both or delete both", given our (me and DG) presumably vastly differing views, you're, well, how can I put this so I don't get blocked for violating WP:CIVIL - umm, err, huff, must remember WP:AGF - I give up, I can't think of the right expression. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither his nor your views about the personal impact of having a Wikipedia article relate to the issue my comment is about, that's what I was saying. I did not say they have no bearing at all on the overall question of having an article about either of you. I think you overrate the importance of the subject's wishes to the policy on biographies of living persons, though, presumably because it serves your purposes to do so. That question is hardly touched on in the policy, except with respect to inclusion of information like birthdates, although it's been a handy argument in getting people to understand why such articles warrant special care. Nevertheless, in nearly all cases it's quite possible to reach an appropriate result by applying a duly high standard for the content, without needing to punt on the matter by having the subject dictate the outcome. I have resolved several problematic cases using this approach, and have sometimes seen the subject's wishes about having an article do a complete about-face as a result, when they see the difference between a hatchet-job and a properly balanced, neutral presentation. --Michael Snow (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not fame, importance, or significance. Start with User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not fame nor importance and Jimbo's "No." and work on from there through Wikipedia talk:Notability and many other places where this has been repeated, if you don't see why this is. Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Ok. First smack Doc with a trout for writing this article. More seriously I'm seeing a few mentions in the press but I'm not seeing any about David. He does not as of yet appear to meet WP:BIO(it is arguable that he does but I'm not seeing it strongly). There are instead a handful of occasions (maybe two handfuls?) of David being quoted or referred to. Being quoted a lot isn't generally enough for that. Seth's call for keeping seems pointy especially given that Seth is much more notable than David (sorry David). While obviously having actual articles on major Wikipedians would likely help them see some of the more serious problems we have with BLPs this is not a good reason to modify our inclusion criteria. Finally a procedural note: There are two other people with similar names to David at the top of the page. If this debate does end up favoring deletion we should instead just keep the page as a dab page. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't write it, he made a redirect to Gerard David Viridae^Talk 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Misread the history. Ok, slap Crotualus Horridus. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Funning aside, I have long felt that Wikipedia people should default to having a bio page about them, because it does seem to make them more sensitive to WP:BLP issues. This not something new with DG, but a long-held position, what I mean by WP:EATYOUROWNDOGFOOD. Again, see my comment above, raw notability is not the only factor I think should matter - the subject's own wishes, and yes, some practice-what-you-preach, should all factor in (note I said "factor in", not "are dispositive") -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a spokesperson, as Seth says, so his name will show up incidentally in a lot of material. None of it appears to approach significant coverage of the subject of the article, David. That's the threshold for notability and he doesn't meet it. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, if nothing else. --Conti|✉ 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/revert, David's in the press a lot, and wonderful at it, but spokesmen are not inherently notable. --fvw * 23:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on, seriously? There's not a single reference about him, he's just mentioned incidentally as a spokesperson. (It can go back to being a redirect if people want, I don't have an opinion either way.) --Tango (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see the notability threshold being met. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Jheald (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tango said it all. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page (which should also include David Gerrard, BTW). There may or may not conceivably be a weak case for an article on our own Mr. Gerrard, but if there is, I doubt it would qualify as primary article. As such I would say weak delete, but if the article is kept it should be moved to David Gerard (Wikimedia) or similar. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (revert to dab page) - by any objective measure, David Gerard doesn't pass our notability test. The 'references' provided all quote him as a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation on some other Wikipedia-related story - they're not about him at all. Until such time as a reliable source writes an article about David Gerard, having this page is simply navel-gazing. Terraxos (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I think it would probably be OK to include a line on the disambiguation page saying 'David Gerard is a volunteer spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation', or something like that - just so long as no one tries to turn it into a blue link. Terraxos (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Galactus. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallactus[edit]

Article subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria. Very non-notable. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Galactus as plausible mispell. JuJube (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the AfD on the Metal and Rock project discussion pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been nominated for an East Coast Music Award. Zazaban (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fair Deal (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article does not meet WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to list of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arosaurer[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discuss how to merge in the appropriate place, which is not here. DGG (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Merge and truncation of indiscriminate materil Per usual treatment of fiction, only major characters belong on wikipedia, minor ones can be mentioned in the "list of _____ characters" articles, but do not warrant their own article. WP is not a repository for fictional plot, or a place for indiscriminate information. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Noian. The Locke (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Noian. It might not warrant a separate article, but the nominator does not indicate why it doesn't deserve coverage at all. They did not look for references prior to deletion and did not consider the usual treatment of fictional characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to list of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Sniper[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tealwisp. A few important ones would help introduce people to the general idea of the show.The Locke (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It might not warrant a separate article, but the nominator does not indicate why it doesn't deserve coverage at all. They did not look for references prior to deletion and did not consider the usual treatment of fictional characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whether this is merged or deleted, or even kept, this should Redirect to sniper since it is the most likely subject. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Discuss how to merge at the appropriate place,which is not here--I don't think anyone is seriously defending it as an article As far as merged content goes, none of the objection in the nomination are even relevant to possible unsuitability for merged content, since primary sources are acceptable --and even preferred--for straight description. DGG (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to list of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquadon[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. lack of notability outside the Zoids universe.Mrathel (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tealwisp. A few important ones would help introduce people to the general idea of the show.The Locke (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It might not warrant a separate article, but the nominator does not indicate why it doesn't deserve coverage at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Discuss how to merge at the appropriate place,which is not here--I don't think anyone is seriously defending it as an article As far as merged content goes, none of the objection in the nomination are even relevant to possible unsuitability for merged content, since primary sources are acceptable --and even preferred--for straight description. DGG (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayani at banal[edit]

No assertion of notability. Lyrics are not generally notable. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and we don't do articles of lyrics. Perhaps should be prod'ed per db-song, otherwise this is a likely snowball. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete......snowball... Drmies (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, possible Speedy A9 too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was BLP delete. Although only two people contributed to the discussion, the only credible source--an Arizona Republic article--mentioned the subject only in passing. This article was poorly sourced from the start, and no other sources have been added that could outweigh the serious BLP issues. BLP is very explicit on this--poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed without discussion. Blueboy 96 17:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tina O'Darby[edit]

I speedily deleted this as CSD#G10 on the premise that the lack of notability did not outweigh the serious WP:BLP concerns. Unfortunately, this was declined for speedy deletion earlier, so here we are. There is not sufficient assertion of notability to begin with, IMO. Not sufficiently sourced. And needs deletion under BLP. Notoriety only is asserted. If it exists, it is not sufficient for notability Dloh cierekim 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: no credible sources - almost certainly a hoax created by someone who knows someone by that name. Not notable even if not a hoax. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, two of the links support this not being a hoax. I do not dispute the information as presented. I just don't see the BLP issue being outweighed by notability. Dloh cierekim 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sources "support" the article, but they have no credibility, IMO. Two free websites and a picture of a news article (which simply lists her a being arrested as a suspect) that can't be verified at azcentral.com. In any case, clearly not a notable person if she has only appeared in one local newspaper article.--ThaddeusB (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Boy (eLDee album)[edit]

For an album supposedly due out in only 8 days I'm finding no sources whatsoever, no track listing, nothing. WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources on the article (facebook and youtube) are definitely not reliable sources, and like the nom, I can't find any in a search. Raven1977 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established as per WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games rated E10+[edit]

Another unmaintainable list, not to mention that the titles don't mention the ESRB. The two fall under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. _ZXCVBNM 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — mainly because Wikipedia is not a directory. Furthermore, given the fact that the ESRB has been around since 1994, this list would be too large and not maintainable (though not as strong an argument for deletion as "directory"). MuZemike (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SALAT and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Randomran (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games rated T[edit]

Unmaintanable list, useless in context and can easily be searched from the ESRB site instead. _ZXCVBNM 18:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or Redirect to ESRB page. The Locke (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — mainly because Wikipedia is not a directory. Furthermore, given the fact that the ESRB has been around since 1994, this list would be too large and not maintainable (though not as strong an argument for deletion as "directory"). MuZemike (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SALAT and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Randomran (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Woogie Santa Claus[edit]

non notable song WP:Music Oo7565 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of it ever charting by any artist. No other sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charting is not the only criteria for song notability, and this song has been around for years. Google alone lists many notable performers - I see Brian Setzer, James Brown, Vox and others. The Songwriters Hall of Fame website gives the song notability for being the A-side of Page's Tennessee Waltz and the song that was initially promoted by the label until Tennessee Waltz became the hit; this was the same situation that occurred with Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock and its A-side, Thirteen Women. The article needs to be expanded from this stub, but I believe it to be a viable topic. 23skidoo (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23skidoo - how about adding this information and source it in the article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 23skiddo. [3] would indicate it is fairly well known and has lots of sources. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search also finds plenty of sources, mostly about the Patti Page recording. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Drinking Game[edit]

Disputed PROD. Non-notable fraternity drinking game. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up one day. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree, probably made-up and created here while drunk. MuZemike (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wseas[edit]

Article for organization with no third-party coverage outside of press releases. This is a self-promotional article that has been deleted multiple times already under db-g11 (see: deletion logs at Wseas, WSEAS, World scientific and engineering academy and society, and World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society) - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is something of a fascinating case as far as I am concerned. WSEAS is a Greece-based academic conference planning organisation with a large internet presence per google searches. As Barek points out, versions of this article have been deleted multiple times as promotional/advertising. The current article is hardly in that category, but there are, I believe questions about whether it meets our criteria for notability.

WSEAS puts on many, many conferences yearly [4] and as a result there are many, many googlehits mentioning the organization, often as citations to the papers presented at them, [5][6], as well as multiple other self-published references that include the press releases referred to above.
The organization appears to be controversial in some circles, with (for our intents and purposes likely unreliable) blogs and webpages making allegations of spamming to get submissions [7][8], questioning the quality of the conferences [9][10], including the acceptance/rejection rates.[11].

Delete - I mostly agree with Slp1: I am familiar with WSEAS, but only as the sender of spammy emails advertising in a quite naive way meetings and journals unheard of elsewhere. So, unless a reliable, independent source can be found about its activities, I do not believe it can be deemed notable. Goochelaar (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in much the same position as Goochelaar, I kind of liked the idea of having the article there as a warning, but if the sources on their spamming aren't even acceptable I'm pretty sure the sources on their actual conferences (if there are any) aren't either. Delete. --fvw * 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ive done a fairly thorough search for the notability of their publications, None of there journals are covered in web of science. almost none of them are held by more than one or two worldcat university libraries. Few are indexed by he major indexing Ulrichs lists them, but indicate that most of he m are not peer reviewed., services. There is no imaginable way we could have an article on thiis organization as it does nothing notable to write about. If we were a consumer guide, not an encyclopedia, we could includes these results showing that their journals and other publications are totally insignificant.As our role is an encyclopedfa, we need to refrain from that, regardless of the temptatation. to explode this bubble. DGG (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being in the scientific field, these are not considered reputable. I've gotten quite a few spammed messages from them. Nobody else seems to have given this organization much thought and an encyclopedia, being a tertiary source, should certainly not be the first one to do so. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Beatles' breakup[edit]

The result was Keep. SilkTork *^YES! 23:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a speculative article that reads like a personal essay that is a synthesis of other theories. I think the subject matter is not an encyclopedic topic in itself, and the decision in 2006 to deal with the topic in a sober and factual manner in the main History of The Beatles article seems like the right one. The article invites speculation as there are few facts about the breakup. A simple factual record of the events surrounding the breakup - Lennon leaving the band, McCartney making the announcement - could be made in the appropriate section of the History article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing there requires anything other than the usual editing. There is an extensive literature on the breakup of the Beatles, and this article's assertions seem mostly to be upheld by the sources. This could not be merged into History of the Beatles without either undue weight or loss of information. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic, discussed in depth in every biography of each band member and in most books about the band itself. Problems with current article content should be fixed by editing, not deletion (although I don't see any such problems). JulesH (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced, notable topic, and one that is covered too much in-depth to be rolled into the main article. The article can invite speculation all it likes -- we don't care about anything but what's on the page and any such speculation will be deleted unless sourced, anyway, so that's an irrelevant issue. 23skidoo (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-researched, well-written. No problems at all. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This only needs more references, (it has 26 so far) but as it is an oft-discussed topic, it dearly needs a page on Wikipedia.--andreasegde (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Electric Light Orchestra. Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Border[edit]

So what is the beef? why should it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Equaliser (talk • contribs) 2008/12/15 09:50:33

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Movement (Jumping Biz) to redirect Across the Border as well as several other ELO songs that were seen as non-notable to their respective album pages, and to merge the content from the song pages into the album pages. It appears that someone had done that but the edits were reverted. Scootey (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Lets do it!--Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest relisting. Something's gone wrong with the nomination as it appears whoever nominated the article either didn't sign it or something went off. A criteria should be presented at the top. No opinion on the nomination itself, we just should make sure it's properly done. 23skidoo (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it looks like a left-over from the recent ELO b-sides nominations, in which case the consensus was to redirect. JamesBurns (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boagworld[edit]

Advertisement, alexa rank of 151,113 O bli (Talk) 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN / Vanity / Advertising. Cnwb 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. like Cnwb --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising for non-notable podcast. Major contributions from two single purpose accounts, one of them named PaulBoag - plus a boatload of edits from an IP credited with contributions only to this article - make it look rather spammy/self serving. B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. It's snowing Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wells (American football)[edit]

Wikipedia has come to an understanding of what constitute notable athletes. These guidelines have been discussed and debated extensively and used repeatedly as the foundation for AFD discussions conerning non-notable athletes. Per WP:ATHLETE athletes generally have to fit one of the following two categories to warrant their own article:

People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[9]
People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

This means that eventhough an athlete may receive coverage in their local paper or play at a collegiate level, where they receive coverage for their involvement in a team, they are generally not notable until they play at the highest level. There are several HS and College players who have existing articles.

This is a non-notable college football player who hasn't done anything. He is no more notable than your local newsreporter or councilwoman. Just because there are some articles, doesn't make the player notable. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Balloonman has nominated several college football players for deletion with the same rationale, so I will post my same rationale to all of his AfDs.) WP:ATHLETE is considered to be an additional criterion to notability, as indicated here: (Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.) Whether this player may or may not meet WP:ATHLETE should not be the question. The basic criteria, as outlined by WP:BIO, is that these players must be the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]. It also says that if the depth of the coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability. Take a look at the sources referenced by the article - do they not meet these requirements? I think they do. BlueAg09 (Talk) 11:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMeets WP:N guideline--2008Olympian^chitchat 17:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE. I expect every competent administrator to know this. SashaNein (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ATHLETE does not, nor do any of the other additional criteria, make WP:N invalid. The additional criteria are used to determine notability of various classes of subjects that may fail WP:N yet still be notable enough for an article. That is why the additional criteria are there, not because the athlete in this case needs to meet more strict criteria, but that if enough coverage under WP:N cannot be found, WP:ATHLETE can be consulted to see if they still merit an article. No subject that meets WP:N should be deleted based on notability criteria, regardless of how many additional guidelines the subject fails under. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Apparently this was also nominated by Balloonman when he listed a bunch of college football players here a few days ago, but wasn't put here for some reason. There's no question that not every bench-warmer who plays college football should have an article here, but Wells is not a bench-warmer; he is the starting running back for the Ohio State Buckeyes, one of the most popular and successful teams in college football. He clearly meets the general notability guideline and therefore should be kept. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember I could turn on ESPN in September and count on hearing about Chris Wells and his injury in every single show. The starting running back of a high profile Top 25 team easily meets WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news pulls up 241 recent news hits for "Beanie Wells". He was also a second team All-American last year. --Smashville^talk 00:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N The Locke (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep WP:Snow. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cox School of Business[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cox School of Business

This article is blatant advertising for this School and is, at this point, essentially spam. If not radically altered to remove the offending portions, it should be deleted. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. All university business schools (especially one connected to one of Texas's major private universities) are notable and the spam can be easily culled. Nate • (chatter) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – and clean-up. As Nate pointed out it is part of the Southern Methodist University. By the way, can you point me to the guidelines and or policy that states were poorly written articles, about notable persons – organization – events and so on, are to be deleted. I see where it says clean-up!Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a highly notable school. The article needs editing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major business school at major university. These, generally have separate articles, as do law schoola and medical schools. DGG (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granny women[edit]

Is this for real? Sukiari (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's for real but not limited exclusively to Apallaches [12]; the term also has a specific African usage. NVO (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some work, but it appears to be a legitimate historical term that appears in many reliable sources (Google results minus all the porn). (Also, it would help if the nom's deletion rationale were more specific.) SheepNotGoats (Talk) 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hoax, if that's what's being asked. Do we have an article on wise women generally? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a hoax. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can't see any reason to delete this, seems to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Wiw8 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Smith (American actor)[edit]

Borderline notability at best - his IMDb page lists almost no credits, and one of the only film parts is marked "uncredited". Seems to be a collection of minor parts. Also looks like it might be a vanity page. User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked with Justin Smith (american actor) on a film called The Silent Fall and recently met back up with him at a charity event for kids where he had many fans. I looked up The Silent Fall on Wikipedia and noticed they had the wrong Justin Smith (actor) attached to the cast list. I took it upon my self to create an article for him. Judging by his IMDb page he has more credits than that of the Austalian Justin Smith (actor) that he was being confused with. If he has more credits than the australian Justin smith (actor), and if The Silent Fall has an article on wikipedia with a cast list and Justin Smith (american actor) was the lead character in that film then he deserves to have an article to go along with it. All the information in his article is legit and verifiable with referances. Yes, there is one credit that is marked uncredited, but many times when an actor has a small part or a cameo this happens. It seems as though he was still in the film with face time (as there is a screen still from the film on his IMDb page) and has many other credits other than that particular one. Thank you --Johnnyutah8 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyutah8 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It sounds like there is COI in the picture and some serious bloating of minor roles, but a lead role in The Silent Fall and being the host of a nationally syndicated television program combined qualify him as notable for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite to remove self-promotional-sounding material, but I'm going with the keep based upon the Daily Buzz involvement, plus The Silent Fall. The As the World Turns involvement needs to be downplayed as according to IMDb he was only in 2 episodes (however as IMDb isn't 100% accurate in these episode counts, there might be another source indicating otherwise). In any event, it's a weak keep, but a keep nontheless. 23skidoo (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mock & Sweet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mock & Sweet

Article has been around for 1 year and has made no attempt to show notability. None of the staff listed have any notability either.じんない 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. じんない 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment, "TV series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable". This series has been broadcast internationally. Besides airing in Japan (Nippon Television), it aired in Italy (Odeon TV) and Brazil (Rede Globo).--Nohansen (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOEFFORT 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment, WP:NOEFFORT, and editorial policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided Nohansen backs up his claims with evidence. I agree with all the other !votes above. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[13] seems to cover it... 208.245.87.2 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite that in the article then.

EDIT for clarification: Please cite exactly what ANN reference is being used for in the article as it is unclear.じんない 02:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean aside from verifying that the TV series exists, and was nationally broadcast, and broadcast in other countries as well? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing in the article is unclear. I went and looked at it myself and found it after a while, but it wasn't clear what the reference for the page was being used for since there was so much information on it.じんない 16:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once the facts behind the assertion of notability are verified, even without explicit citation, the rest is a matter of editorial improvement, which per policy does not have a deadline. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Jets logos and uniforms[edit]

Other NFL teams do not have such pages not sure why this page is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrusso99 (talk • contribs) 2008/12/13 04:11:55

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any and all verifiable material to New York Jets. This doesn't warrant its own article. MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was split off because the main article is getting to long. Making subarticles is an acceptable solution. See Wikipedia:Subarticle. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Its a valid topic for an article, and is likely easily sourcable. Whether or not the other 31 NFL teams have corresponding articles has no relevance on whether this one should exist. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator does not make any argument to delete this other than parity. While the NFL has policies to promote parity, Wikipedia is not bound by these. The only other choice here would be a merge and looking at the main article, I would agree that a separate sub-article is likely justified in this instance. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G7) by Efe. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VariousMusiK Group[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable. I searched it on Google and all I found was the Wikipedia page for it. The Prince (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can see, they're a group of guys who've made some fan albums, and are trying to go professional. They haven't made it yet, though- although they act like it's a done deal, Square Enix has only told them that their application will be processed by February, and BBC/CNN said the same about January- no promises about them getting hired to do anything. That doesn't put them above any other composing group/garage band. --Pres N 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7/G11 Doesn't assert any sort of notability and reads like a big PR piece. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability issues and WP:COI Matt (Talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User blocked for threats. Other admins may review and unblock if they deem appropriate. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tagged it G7 after the user replaced the content with 'fine, remove it'. Matt (Talk) 00:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Frketić[edit]

Prod removed without explanation; article is unsourced, contains no assertion of notability and fails WP:ATHLETE as Frketić has never played in a fully professional league Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. like Giant Snowman --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 15 atm he hasn't made pro and might not for 3 years and if he ever does, then it be recreated. Govvy (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played at a fully professional level. Bettia (rawr!) 12:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Parhamovich[edit]

In January 2007, Andrea Parhamovich's death in Iraq was documented in dozens of newspapers. While her death is not unique, her status as a civilian killed in Iraq earned her more news coverage than the thousands of others killed in the conflict. The news was also spurred on by her boyfriend and soon-to-be-fiancée, a news reporter who later wrote a non-notable book about his relationship with her. As the article stands, it is not much more than a memorial, and a check of Google news suggests that there aren't any reliable sources to expand the article to anything more than a stub about her death. Burzmali (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand: A search in Google news comes up with more than 21 news articles. Her death was covered in the New York Times as an "American teaching democracy to Iraqis". We can disagree with the news coverage from Irak, but that's not a valid argument to delete an article.--Jmundo (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that article, aside from describing the details of her death, her boss described her. The Times didn't speak to her family, they didn't look into her past, they just reported her death and talked about the events surrounding it:

Mr. Campbell described Ms. Parhamovich as a driven young woman, inspired by politics and a desire to help Iraqis connect with their newly elected government.

He said she joined the National Democratic Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Washington that has worked in Iraq since 2003, after working for a few months with a similar group in Baghdad.

“She was an idealistic person who saw an opportunity in Iraq to help, to work with people in Iraq who were interested in democracy and human rights, which is what she cared about,” he said.

I'm not saying she wasn't a brave woman, but of those 21 articles, all but 3 or 4 are dated 1/18-1/21 and are reprints or synopses of the AP story. Burzmali (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article dated May 16, 2008 still mention her death 1.--Jmundo (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one sentence talking about the NDI and it's reasons for shifting their base of operations. That's hardly "significant coverage". Burzmali (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there may have been lots of reports, most of those weren't independent and none of them went beyond reporting her death. Also WP:ONEEVENT applies. She's known only for her death which had no lasting impact on US perception of the war in Iraq, nor any procedures or laws inside Iraq itself. Basically a memorial, like the book her husband wrote. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, The New York Times and Washington Post are independent sources. Second, her death did have impact, the Andi Foundation "was established in her honor to provide financial assistance for college scholarships and access to internship opportunities in politics and media." This foundation received media coverage from The New York Observer, meaning that reports went beyond her death and WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here.--Jmundo (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's puzzling to me the rationale that since an article cannot be expanded more, it should be deleted. Look an a conventional encyclopedia, and you'll find plenty of short biographical articles about people. The person was widely reported on at the time, the facts are verifiable, and was carried in national newspapers and newswires. It also cannot be argued that the inclusion of this article harms Wikipedia. Ironically, just last night I had dinner with a friend from the UN who said she wasn't interested in being posted to Iraq, because she remembered that "NDI girl who was killed in Iraq." I'm honestly puzzled and astonished at this AfD, given Wikipedia's mission to provide the sum of all human knowledge. This falls unequivocally into that domain. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of a negative is not a positive. In other words, being harmless does not equate meeting notability requirements. Not everything that is newsworthy is of lasting encyclopedic interest to the world or to this project, and someone notable only for the circumstances of their death - even it was remarkable enough for major sources to report on - clearly fails to meet our notability requirements for people. As the guideline states, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." I would say that this biography is unwarranted. It wouldn't be in a regular general interest encyclopedia, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's long-standing specifications for what merits inclusion. Steven Walling (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Wikipedia's policies lack common sense. We have articles about pornstars, Joe the plumber, Bush shoe throwing incident but we seem to lack a criteria for inclusion for brave civilians in a war zone. Yes, I know about WP:OSE--Jmundo (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We judge this article on its merits alone, not how well it compares to whatever other subject you might choose to compare it to. However brave she may have been has nothing to do with whether she belongs in an encyclopedia. We're not a memorial site to every person who has ever done something praiseworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "It wouldn't be in a regular general interest encyclopedia" is not a guideline Wikipedia has abided by at any time in its history that I know of. Perhaps as a criteria for inclusion ("It's in Britannica, it should be in Wikipedia too") but not as one for exclusion. In fact, one of Jimmy Wales's favorite quotes is "Because the world is radically new, the ideal encyclopedia should be radical, too." Wikipedia's aim has never been to provide an article-for-article free alternative to Britannica. Also, you misread my comment. It's not that being harmless equates to a notability requirement. It's simply pointing out that this deletion nom fails on both counts: this subject is both notable, and its inclusion does no harm. For that, it is doubly worthy of staying. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned conventional encyclopedias because you did with your "look in any conventional encyclopedia" comment. If you want to compare to conventional encyclopedias, then I'm game. If not, then let's avoid such a discussion, since I agree that we're not limited to traditional concepts. But you can't have it both ways. Either we use it as a basis for comparison or we don't. Whatever the case, we are bound by the consensus decisions of the community, and the policy about what we are not and the guideline for the notability of people both unequivocally state that the merit of bios about people famous for one event only is very shaky. Someone who was only newsworthy because of the circumstances of their death, a subject that clearly has no room to evolve past its already limited notability, is not worthy of treatment in Wikipedia. Steven Walling (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back into my comment, it is specifically about the length of the article, and whether an entry of such short length would be found in an encyclopedia, not whether a conventional (whatever that might mean) encyclopedia would have an article about this particular person. It was not meant to imply, nor did it imply, anything more than that. For a long time, I've had issues with "Wikipedia is Not News" and "one event" as criteria for excluding subjects here, and this is perhaps one of the more obvious cases where the culture has shifted significantly in the last few years. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you are most definitely not the only individual that dislikes those two tidbits. But the simple fact is that they remain a standing part of policy and guideline, and have for years. The place to challenge them is there, not on an AFD. Steven Walling (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm missing a policy-based reason for the nomination. Sure this isn't a memorial, but come on, we've got a NYT article an AP article and apparently a book about the event so it's pretty darn notable. Should we cover the event or the person? Eh, I'm good either way. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that most of those sources fail to provide significant coverage of her, outside of the last day of her life. The point is that the article is weak on WP:Notability and suffers from both WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs had a section or subarticle talking about their activities in Iraq, I would say merge it there. Burzmali (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be okay with the article being about the event and book (and retitled). But the event seems notable, so per NOT#NEWS we can and should cover it. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week DeleteOne has to be notable for something. being killed in a war as a noncombatant is not sufficiently distinctive, unless there is something special about it. What is special here? The appropriate policy is NOT NEWS--pathetic news stories about sad events do not make the subject notable no matter how many papers cover it. is tabloiid jouralism even if the NYT Times indulges in it. (it's a pity about their standards, but they're out of our control and all we can do is to maintain our own.) , She might possibly be notable as the subject of a best selling book, and that part needs to be looked at further. The book is presently in about 600 WorldCat libraries It seems to have been reviewed or at least noticed in the NYT, which is usually reliable about books so other reviews can be looked for., If found, rewritee around the book. , not the person. DGG (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm with Hobit; I see no policy reason to delete what is, though short, a complete and relevant article. --AlisonW (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the policy reason is NOT MEMORIAL, DGG (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which just says the subject must meet notability requirements, just as every other article must. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete. I would suggest that her information be added to an already existing and much broader article. I certainly felt emotion for the individual. However, to be notable only because of one's death is not enough. However, if that death had led to a major policy change, humanitarian endeavor or directly or indirectly saved the lives of a group of individuals it would probably pass the notability issue. Royalhistorian (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From an official United Nations website: "The murderers who ended her life and the lives of her guards also knew this very well and wanted probably to kill the freedom Andrea represents when using their tools of assassins against her. Some young men in Iraq will soon only know how to use such tools instead of those who are used to build, repair, heal, teach or harvest. These were Andrea's tools, her commitment, your collective promise."--Jmundo (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to the proper article on the same subject. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Dolphin (Ulysses) (2008)[edit]

Article doesn't follow project standards, mainly a copy from the season article, 2008 Pacific typhoon season, and title is incorrect. A sandbox by one of the project editors on this storm is already being created so this article would have to be deleted regardless of what it is now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is poorly written and is a Copy & Paste from the Season article - as mentioned above i have already started on a detailed sandbox which i hope to be able to publish later today at Typhoon Dolphin (2008) Jason Rees (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the article does need substantial cleanup, it meets notability requirements, having caused 23 deaths. Also, given the fairly extensive news coverage, the article could be easily expanded. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester School of Excellence[edit]

Non-notable; "Manchester School of Excellence" gets 28 hits on Google, most of which are because of this article. Brian Kendig (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide reliable sources that address the school itself directly in detail, or if someone finds a good redirect target. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any third party coverage in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GMO By Franklin Valencia[edit]

Personal essay about genetically modified organisms. Prod was reverted. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete genetically modified organisms are already covered elsewhere and Wikipedia is not for personal essays. It looks like a school assignment, so I'd be happy to provide them with a copy of deleted material if needed, but it can't stay. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a collection of class notes, a violation of WP:NOT. B.Wind (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would suggest removing this work simply because it is little more than a high school or undergraduate research paper. I would suggest that the author finds an already accepted entry on the topic and merely edit that piece with primary source materials. Royalhistorian (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mondaine. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luminox[edit]

Does not meet notability guidlines, Has been non-notable tagged since June 2007. The article is written like an advertisment an thats a little bit of a side reason to delete but Speedy g-11 was declined. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC) The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't try to de-spam it, because the text is irretrievably tainted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - and of course clean-up, it is spammy, to, Mondaine as these two companies are now one and the same, as shown here [14]. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with a very short (2-3 sentences?), as indicated above, to Mondaine. --Stormbay (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, no inline cites in the text so a merge seems pointless. Wizardman 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 00:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyProLang[edit]

The subject of this article generates 10 hits when I do a English langauge Google search. This is not dispositive, but reasonable evidence that there is not much in the way of significant coverage. The fact that the project was the subject of a poster presentation at ICSSA 2008 is not helpful, as (a) a poster presentation does not constitute significant coverage, and (b) even if it did, the poster was presented by a creator of the project, hence not independent:

Dr. Aziz Barbar, Chairperson of the Department of Computer Science, will be representing AUST in the United States on October 22nd, during the International Conference on Computer Science and Applications (ICCSA), San Francisco. The research paper is entitled: MyProLang – A Template-Driven Automatic Natural Programming Language, and was written by Dr. Aziz Barbar and Youssef Bassil (graduate student).

—AUST Midweek, p. 4

In addition, the article is created by a user whose username is identical to the creator of the subject software project, whose main contributions are on this article, and whose other contributions are only on closely related topics. Bongo matic 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we've been through all this before with other grad students publishing their theories online. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Maralia (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Soccer Club[edit]

Not notable, small time Australian junior football club that has never played in any serious league. ClubOranje^Talk 10:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.

Nominator comment Only reference refers own website. Highest grade senior sides play in is local division D. Previously failed PROD.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) No indication of why the club is important or significant. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) - DB-CLUB, does not meet notability or significant guidlines. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I decided to decline the speedy because it was PRODded and disputed before. Letting the AfD run is not harmful and allows clear consensus So Why 11:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this club has not achieved notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.71.131 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw in mentions of Belmont Valentine and Belmont Swansea Swans if the Aussy leagues, but I am not sure if this is associated with them or not. I tend to lean towards delete atm. Govvy (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable amateur club. Murtoa (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A local club with no indication as to why they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Bettia (rawr!) 12:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Used car. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car background checks[edit]

This article is orphaned, has no references, isn't written in an encyclopaedic style and has previously been used to advertise commercial services. It serves no purpose and should be deleted. TimTay (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the intention that something else can rise from the ashes. I believe that an article could be written on this topic, but you don't start with this. This article exists primarily to promote a website. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Used car; the article discusses vehicle history reports, including a few points that are not discussed in this article (i.e. providers of such reports in various countries.) I don't think it promotes a website, since it doesn't even mention or link to any companies that sell vehicle history reports. Scootey (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a reasonable idea. It doesn't promote any websites right now because they have been removed as spam. --TimTay (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now. Scootey (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per above. What little unique useful information can be incorporated into Used car, which probably could use some cleaning up as well. Flowanda | Talk 11:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Synthpop. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthpop revival[edit]

Appears to have completely made up and the product of original research. The creator of this page has also created unverified pages like New wave revival (now a redirect). The only things cited in this page include links to social music site tags that have nothing to do with this article's topic WesleyDodds (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, synthpop is NOT post-punk. There is a distinct difference between "post-punk revival" guitar bands and synthpop revival bands.

If there hasn't been much research, it's because few people have cared to write about it, but synthpop and 80s music revival does exist and it is very big and real.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 December 2008

Delete: Unfortunately the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" as per the verifiability policy. Recreate when and if sources that meet the reliable sources guidelines decide to write about it. --JD554 (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Synthpop, which needs more on recent trends. Comparisons in the article to other genres are not grounds for deletion, it just needs a cleanup. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge, since the article is the result of original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NSR77 ^T 20:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Totnesmartin. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little useful information to merge, WP:OR. JamesBurns (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Synthpop, as there's nothing here which has a source, but it is a plausible section of Synthpop. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (author requested deletion - G7). --Oxymoron⁸³ 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward A. Graff[edit]

Not notable autobiography.

7 Google hits for "Edward A. Graff", all of which are genealogy websites and legal proceedings.

The organizations mentioned seem to be weird little shell corporations that barely exist as well:

0 Google hits for "american north oil company".

2 Google hits for "american energy werks" — the website of the organization itself and Mr. Graff's personal website.

7 for "innoad inc" — personal website and more legal proceedings.

2 for "milwaukee mercedes group" — personal website again and a forum post.

Delete tgies (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-person. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As indeed I had it tagged, but someone interpreted the whole CEO bit as an assertion of notability. tgies (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.71.131 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid of Monsters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod. Some kind of Half-Life mod (free user-made add-on). Not entirely clear on the notability criteria for these, since a few other video game mods seem to have articles, but hey, other stuff exists. Has a not unreasonable number of Google hits, but a significant portion are just mirrors of the download, and ghits alone are probably not enough to sustain an article. tgies (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, it has a past AfD. Hadn't noticed. tgies (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no content that would give reason to undoing the first AFD. All the hits are either database copies or hits from the creator himself. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no value at all
Delete - As far as I can tell, this mod still hasn't received the kind of coverage required for the notability guidelines. There is a single review at planet half-life. If we have concensus that this is a reliable source, then this is enough to list at List of Half-Life mods but not enough for a seperate article. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no need for a seperate article for every single video game mod. Elm-39 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. This was a very difficult discussion to navigate. On first skim, one sees "delete redirect merge redirect keep keep keep keep redirect keep redirect keep keep delete redirect keep redirect redirect", which seems to give slight advantage for keep. However, on scrutiny of many of the keep !votes, we see a lot of likieitness, crystal, and unarticulated or underarticulated reasoning. So then further scutiny is given to the redirect and merge !votes, which as well, as a group, provide some iffy and weak reasoning. What is clear, is that the participants here do not support outright deletion. On final analysis, the fact that several of the keeps address the fact that this article's subject meets the secondary retention criteria of WP:Music, was the most compelling; so the outcome, therefore decided as such. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eoghan Quigg[edit]

Exactly the same reasoning as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLS (X Factor Group) (closed as redir): Creation of a standalone article for Eoghan Quigg is both premature and unneccessary: premature because he is currently only known for his involvement in the X Factor and WP:BIO1E applies, and unneccessary because a bio already exists at List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#Eoghan Quigg. If he gains independent notability then an article would be appropriate but to assume he will before the event violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect With JLS being closed as a redirect, I don't see why Eoghan Quigg should be treated any differently. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article also seems to be a small-scale vandalism magnet, and low-level edit-warring of the "Londonderry", no "Derry" sort. Not sufficient reason to !vote, so passing for now. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge - on the one hand, he didn't win. On the other hand, it's probably quite rare for the Unionists and Republicans to agree on something... Sceptre ^(talk) 11:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since JLS arnt yet notable enough for their own article. Also, its a year before Eoghan can release a single and/or album anyway! JS (chat) 13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: - Semi-protected against strong current of vandalism. Caulde 18:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like he has landed a record deal with Simon Cowell. And could be the Irish selection for the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest 2009(announced tomorrow). The notability speaks for itself.--Judo112 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is notable. As Judo112 stated he has landed a record deal. Its just a matter of time before a record is out. Why delete or merge an article that soon will be recreated, and everyone knows it?. And as stated earlier he is one of two singers currently in the running to represent Ireland in the Eurovision. Him or Johnny Logan.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmm, still lots of ifs and buts here. Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? Also, Eoghan can't release anything for a year due to a clause in his X Factor contract. So "matter of time before a record is out" isnt exactly a strong enough reason to keep at the moment. JS (chat) 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider a "keep" !vote if Eoghan Quigg is Ireland's Eurovision 2009 act; however, the relevant article currently states that (a)Johnny Logan may have made a deal with RTE, and (b) Eoghan "has also stated that he would like to represent Ireland". Too wishy-washy for a "keep" !vote at this stage. I'm ignoring uncited claims of record deals; I'll pay more attention when something is actually released. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually forget all the talk of a record deal. He's shown that he's a figure of unity amongst divided people. That's good enough for me. Especially since I've seen it mentioned again and again and again. He doesn't even need a record deal to be notable. He's already succeeded where many have failed. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [15] [16] [17][reply]

'Local boy gets support from his home community in a national competition' is not unusual or notable. Perhaps this is different considering which home community this is but that is anyway still irrlelevant - it's still about the X Factor. Ros0709 (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. He is yet to do anything significant outside of the show, and any coverage is because of the show. If he does land a deal or take part in something else significant (when either of these is confirmed, not a few off the cuff quotes buried deep in an article) then the article can be restored. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When several million people know who you are, you're notable. Esteffect (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When several million people only know you because you've been on X Factor, only X Factor is notable. See WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. So far, nothing else establishes independent notability. Ros0709 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as per other previous X-Factor finalists. JamesBurns (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also if anyone remembers Eoghan Quigg has had a number one single. Forgetting anything else this normally would warrant his own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.202.114 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, "has won or placed in a major music competition" since he finished the X Factor in the third place. Technically JLS should also be allowed to have their own article due to this.--Alasdair 08:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this argument blows away my deletion rationale. Similarly for JLS, but not Diana Vickers. Ros0709 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - X Factor UK is not a music competition. Come on now. 86.44.18.218 (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On what I said above. He's mentioned here on an official government website... --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 09:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable enough at the moment to warrant an entire article. I would lean towards voting for delete, but people may search his name. A paragraph on The X Factor page is entirely sufficient for now. Sky83 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per ~~219.79.202.114 and~~ Alasdair; ~~assuming 219.79.202.114 is correct, and he has had a number one single, then that, and~~ Placing third in X Factor, just about meets notability requirements. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable in a totally different way than that JLS band, those guys didnt have a record deal for example. He is an upcoming singer and will probably release an album sooner than later. So i say keep. --Judo112 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, if he is notable (and I still don't entirely agree that he is), it's in exactly the same way as JLS. There is nothing that would make him notable where JLS aren't. Bottom line here, if Quigg's page is going to be kept, then JLS must be reinstated as an article in it's own right. Nothing separates them (unless you count that Quigg actually placed lower than JLS on the show). I still think this is a bit of a slippery slope though, because it could be argued that if you're going to allow someone an article solely on the strength of third place in a reality music competition (yes, I know it's part of the rules here, but there has to be some limit surely), we could end up with multiple useless articles on all contestants that have ever taken part in the live shows of any competition, since it could be said that 'placing' in a competition could stretch to 12th place. I still vote for redirect until he has done something more notable than the one thing.Sky83 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anon ip user is refering to this - Hero_(Mariah_Carey_song)#The_X_Factor_UK_2008_Finalists_version - when he says Eoghan has had a number one single. Individual members of a group usually don't get their own article (unless other solo notability exists) so that does not add to the case imo. sassf (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He is a star in the making. I think it's best to have this page for anyone who wants to find out some info on him and his earlier life etc. I say we keep it. XF5000 17:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Redirect as per nominators reasons. There is established precedent for this sort of thing across all reality show articles (and the JLS decision is a direct precedent). Eoghan can have his own page reinstated once he has done something notable outside of the X Factor - meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria for instance. sassf (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectSince others like JLS and Diana Vickers were made redirects to the x factor finalists page, and other signed act ruth lorenzo wasn't even made a page, it is clear that Eoghan should be redircted, as it is only his fans or fans from the x factor that want to keep him, until he releases he first single, you should redirect. 86.157.104.50 (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5)#Diana Vickers. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Vickers[edit]

Exactly the same reasoning as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLS (X Factor Group) (closed as redir): Creation of a standalone article for Diana Vickers is both premature and unneccessary: premature because she is currently only known for her involvement in the X Factor and WP:BIO1E applies, and unneccessary because a bio already exists at List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#Diana Vickers. If she gains independent notability then an article would be appropriate but to assume she will before the event violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect With JLS being closed as a redirect, I don't see why Vickers should be treated any differently. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect like JLS Sceptre ^(talk) 11:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since JLS arnt yet notable, it seems silly to have an article for Diana. Also, its a year before she can release anything anyway! JS (chat) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if she sines with Sony, and we have a decent source saying they intend to sign. However, I agree that, until she actually does, there probably isn't a need for the article. It can easily be resurrected later. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be kept as Sony BMG have signed her, and it would save future work into recreating this article as it is already created it would be common sense to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pic Editor96 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its fairly safe to assume that pretty soon a page for Vickers is going to be necessary because Simon Cowell has become involved. If Vickers has been signed by him (which there are sources saying) then it's only a matter of time before the page expands to one worth keeping. I also agree that deleting it would just create more hassle for someone to recreate the page later on, so why not just leave it as it is and save time later?. Lowri (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then it would shorly be better to redirect the article to the information thats available at List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#Diana Vickers and just undo the redirect once some firm notability has been established? JS (chat) 22:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I know. Redirect to Eoghan Quigg. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 09:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect JS's latest proposal is the way to go. -- Smjg (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was that at the request of the only author of the page I am moving it into User:Arilang1234's user area for further development to resolve the issues raised on the article's talk page and here on the AfD.[18] --PBS (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers[edit]

This page should be deleted because it clearly constitutes original research, more specifically a "Synthesis of published material which advances a position." The article bundles together a group of "massacres and atrocities" that no scholarly source that I know of has ever discussed together. Even the creator of this page admits (in the lead paragraph) that the wiki's main point (i.e., that the heavy population loss that China underwent between 1600 and 1650 was "probably the indirect result of many massacres and atrocities conducted by Manchu barbarians") represents "yet to be verified speculation." For further explanations, see the talk page. Madalibi (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following "redirect" pages because they are former names of the current page.

--Madalibi (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Madalibi (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's clear POV issues with the current version. Synthesising different facts to advance an opinion isn't allowed, but that doesn't really mean everything should be deleted. Surely there's events in there that scholarly sources do cover on their own that could be split out, right? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eenyo[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia's not for things made up one day. Matt (Talk) 06:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism. Óðinn (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom plus WP:DICT. Ros0709 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. tgies (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not one for made up words. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute and total trash. JuJube (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's almost gibberish. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Totaly inpossible to read, per nom. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Snowball clause - what the hell is this load of bollocks doing at AfD? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Who is going to delete this shit? The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East of innocence[edit]

Does not meet guidelines for notability WP:MUSIC Oliver Twisted 03:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability criteria. Óðinn (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes some rather desperate claims at notability but I fail to see how they meet any of the criteria set out at WP:MUSIC. A google search just turns up myspace hits etc. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any significant sources that mention the group in any local newspapers. Eóin (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Dionisio[edit]

Absolutely no hint of notability. Irrelevant at best, advert at worst. This page still qualifies for speedy, but why not put it out of its misery permanently until / unless this person becomes notable. Bongo matic 03:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would not urge keeping this entry unless significant primary and independent source material is used. Also there is a major concern with notability. Perhaps it could be saved if adequate footnoting and significant documentation is added. Royalhistorian (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't have the language skills to do indepth research, but I did find that in Super Inggo the lead villain "sometimes he transforms into a kid, Jack, played by Jacob Dionisio." I would expect a lead villain to be a major role in a tv show, no matter what the age of the actor playing him. The only weak part here is that I don't know how often the transformation occurs exactly. Also a potentially important role in Maalaala Mo Kaya- Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sourcable notability for English Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly any third party coverage as per Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also, suggest this user's contributions warrant more scrutiny. User's other article Jacob Santiago is also up for deletion, possibly a hoax, and I see numerous notices on the user's talk page. --Aude (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotisserie Cat Game[edit]

most likely hoax as the only Google hit for "Rotisserie Cat Game" is this article. B.Wind (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--hoax. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, "Minnesota Rotisserie Cat League" (the organization that supposedly practices/supports/invented this sport) gets no Google results outside of Wikipedia. Most likely a WP:NFT thing or a plain hoax. Icewedge (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax or something made up one day. Either way fails WP:N and WP:V Matt (Talk) 06:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great - This is great 72.196.21.90 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is actually kind of funny, but WP:NFT and all that... - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the article is the shit. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I don't care if it a "hoax" or not, there is a place for humor in userspace. And delete the league article, of course. Collect (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And no, it can't be userfied. Userspace is appropriate to work on articles that might eventually be placed on Wikipedia, but WP:NOT#USER provides that "Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. See User page help for current consensus guidelines on user pages." The main idea is that "Wikipedia is not your web host". Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the exceptions as to what can be on your userspace are many and varied -- including humor. Were we to delete all userspace material per your understanding, we would have 23 total userpages on all of WP <g> Collect (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Michelle Williams discography. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart to Yours/Do You Know[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Heart to Yours/Do You Know

This is just her first two albums bunched into a single package with nothing else. There is nothing notable about this compilation, and nothing that isn't already covered in each individual album. Note also that it's packaged by a different label, meaning it's just a budget-line compo. There are plenty of these around; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Collection (Trisha Yearwood album) for another example. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur; there's no possible real content here, let alone notability. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michelle Williams discography - as a released CD it's a possible search term, but there's nothing here to justify its own article. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I still think it's a fairly unlikely search term, and I don't like redirecting pop music articles as they tend to get undone. (As for the country articles, those I redirect all the time since no one freaking touches them.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable compilation. JamesBurns (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was csd-g7. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backanated[edit]

Non-notable neologism. No references are given, and I was unable to find any. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary for unremarkable, non-widespread internet words Scapler (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article got speedy deleted so you just nomimated a blank page. Schuym1 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Bleu (Vodka)[edit]

non-notable vodka; as far as I can tell, it is distributed only in Michigan. The awards won are minor at best; dozens of other vodkas received a silver medal or higher in San Francisco, for example. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Athough a very uninteresting subject and article, it is sourced with a couple of secondary sources so should stay. Redddogg (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, the references are mostly based on a press release from the company, and are largely about the distributors and not about the vodka. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and sourced; plenty of other relevant ghits. JJL (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not able to find significant numbers of ghits for this vodka. There is a vodka-based drink named a "Blue Dragon", which I suspect predates this vodka and probably inspired the name. There are lots of other things named "Blue Dragon" or "Dragon Bleu", but very very few references to this particular vodka. By my count, there are 4 links in the top 60 ghits - this article, the distributor's website, one of the sources used in the article, and a very brief mention on a site called "bestuff.com". Brianyoumans (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No French sources? With the vodka of French origin, I'd expect some. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now found one French source, at least: an interview with one of the creators of Dragon Bleu, and this seems to indicate that it is available in France, at least from the distiller and online. It seems to be quite obscure, but it exists. I'm not convinced it needs an article, but at least the distributors didn't make up the info on its origins.Brianyoumans (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda yoga[edit]

This article is advertising and concerns a non-notable product. Bertport (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I get 160K google hits for "ananda yoga". This may not be a very good article, but it seems notable enough to need some sort of article. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've reviewed this before. It's definitely notable. It can be de-spammed if necessary. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — blatant advertisement. My WikiSense also tells me there's a possible copyvio of the entire article, but I cannot verify that. (This looks like it has been direct copy/pasted from either a print or web source.) This is regardless of whether this is notable or not. MuZemike (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if this amounts to a copyvio, but at least some of the paragraphs are taken verbatim from the sources they quote (see for instance http://books.google.it/books?id=tuMr0V6OocUC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13dq=%22To+be+understood+correctly,+yoga+postures+have+to+be+seen+in+the+context+of+Patanjali%27s+Eight+Limbs+of+Yoga&source=web&ots=CaA_1sXtOE&sig=Vh3sIYzi_KERctEod2XCTeK74MI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result ) Goochelaar (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That could be an issue - I suggest removing any copyvio and stubifying if need be. But the topic, and article, are definitely notable. Priyanath ^talk 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets and exceeds the usual inclusion criterion. Needing some editing (which it does) doesn't merit deletion. It merits editing. Wily D 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - well referenced, meets notability, covered by many reliable third party sources. Here are just a few, but there are many more:

Yoga Journal's Yoga Basics: The Essential Beginner's Guide to Yoga for a Lifetime of Health and Fitness by Mara Carrico, Editors of Yoga Journal. Published by Macmillan, 1997. ISBN 9780805045710. p. 36. "Ananda Yoga, developed by American J. Donald Walters and based at the Ananda Community....."
Yoga for Men: Postures for Healthy, Stress-Free Living by Thomas Claire. Career Press, 2003. ISBN 9781564146656. p. 99. "Ananda Yoga for Higher Awareness (also known as Ananda Yoga), is an approach to yoga practice...."
Runner's World Magazine, Mar 2006, Vol. 41, No. 3. ISSN 0897-1706. p. 60. "Ananda Yoga: a gentle and inward-focused style...."
Yoga for Dummies by Georg Feuerstein, Lilias Folan. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 1999. ISBN 9780764551178. p. 24. "Ananda Yoga is anchored in the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda..."
Fitness for Dummies by Suzanne Schlosberg. Published by For Dummies, 2005. ISBN 9780764578519 p. 250. "Ananda Yoga requires less strength and flexibility than other styles...."
The Fat-free Truth By Liz Neporent. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005. ISBN 9780618310739. p. 295.
Fitness Professional's Handbook Edward T. Howley, B. Don Franks. Published by Human Kinetics, 2007. ISBN: 9780736061780. p. 347.

Priyanath ^talk 00:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I understand, from the reasons above for keeping, that the subject is likely notable. However, articles written as clear advertisement or copyright violations are reasons for deletion (see the deletion policy). The article requires a complete rewrite to remove said offending material. It is also against official policy to engage in copyright infringement, which is what has happened above. With all that said, I stand by G11, and I will also flag the article for potential copyvio. MuZemike (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, I've removed all the potential copyright violations, rewritten and condensed the rest, added fact tags, removed some sections that were basically instruction, and added another source while rewriting the introduction. Clearly it's a notable subject, and the article needs alot of work - but that's not a reason for deletion. It's a reason instead for keeping and improving. Thanks for bringing the potential copyright violations to everyone's attention. Priyanath ^talk 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep as all spam and copyvio issues have been resolved. Good work, MuZemike (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. WP:Snow. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prairiewood High School Rugby Program[edit]

WP:FANCRUFT, lacks independent reliable sources. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unlikely search term; trim contents drastically and move to new Prairiewood High School article. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say leans heavily towards WP:SPAM when you have stuff like this in the article.

"If you are interested in supporting the team in this exciting adventure, please send an email and information re bank deposit details, etc. will be sent to you. Their email address is: [email protected]"--Sin Harvest (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:FANCRUFT, Seems more like something that should be on the schools website, not on Wikipedia. Matt (Talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough for an encyclopedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per what Matt said. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huge chasm between this and notability. Barely a sentence salvageable for the main school article. Murtoa (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, normally I would say merge to Prairiewood High School, but in this case, that article is a redirect to the one being discussed! Per all the reasons above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and create a redirect to List of Dragon Ball characters. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Cold[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Dragon Ball through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. He's all ready there, but I supposed some of the video game information might be relevant. Leave redirect to list, no stand alone article needed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:44, 12 December 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.
Delete and set up a protected redirect to the LoC. Eusebeus (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the protect needed? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine to counter repeated recreation of an article on a minor character. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of characters and merge anything verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced information and redirect article to the LOC Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect: "Does not establish notability independet of Dragon Ball". -- Goodraise (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To List of Dragon Ball characters. — neuro^(talk) 09:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss a merge on the talk page--personally, I'd support it, provided sufficient material were indeed merged. This is so reasonable that it could have been done without coming here at all. DGG (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was merged; in 2006 no less (see article history). A dynamic IP took it upon themselves to give the character an article again two years after the fact, so TTN brought the matter here. ~Snapper T o 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further Comment It doesn't appear to have been a proper merge, but more of hiding the article under a redirect. There shouldn't be a copyright issue with deletion. Jay32183 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - worse yet In this case, changing to a redirect was tried 3 times: in Oct 2006], again in Dec 2006, and yet again in May 2007, when it was incorrectly called a merge. (And all 3 times by TTN. the present nominator) This sequence shows why a proper reasonable merge works better than a redirect--it satisfies whatever need there is for an article. DGG (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how it wasn't a proper merge. The article as it looked in '06 seems remarkably similar to what was added to the target article. That article was then merged, and a year later that article was also merged (both of which were discussed [find them yourself]). To get back to King Cold, after the merge was first disputed TTN discussed it. Nobody agreed or disagreed so the redirect was reinstated (the content having been merged previously). Even if it was improperly handled at the time the later large scale Dragon Ball merge discussion most certainly would have agreed to merge it, and the merge of King Cold was subsequently upheld. That King Cold differs so much from what is presently at List of Dragon Ball characters#King Cold is because of two reasons: List of Dragon Ball characters#King Cold is the product of three different merges, and the current King Cold content ~~was apparently written by the "restoring" IP~~. The article was at some point properly merged, even if that isn't immediately obvious. ~Snapper T o 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Upon further inspection the IP didn't write it; they ran it:Re Cold through a translator. Think of that what you will. ~Snapper T o 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        When I say "proper merge", I mean content was copied from one article to another. I wasn't actually reading the content itself, but looking for an addition to the target article that lined up with the creation of a redirect. Similar writing could just be the result of the same author writing both articles. It does not appear that content was copied just before or just after the redirection, suggesting that the redirection was not a proper merge. Jay32183 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trance through Dance[edit]

Reads like an essay and has POV issues. Bringing this to AFD because I couldn't find an appropriate CSD tag. Rtyq2 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete appears to be original research. No coverage found through Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michellecrisp. The Locke (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an essay not an encyclopedia article. The author should contribute to other articles as the information was interesting. Redddogg (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally an essay. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from wikipedia, and send it to a journal for publication. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant delete - Interesting essay... but we don't do essays. Sacred dance is virtually empty, perhaps some of this material could go there, but not in this form. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mattis[edit]

Article is an extensive biography, but I cannot see how this person is notable. I cannot find coverage in independent third-party sources. TN‑X-Man 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I thank Mr. Mattis for his fine service to his country. In addition, Mr. Mattis seems to be a hard and dedicated worker. On the other hand, sorry to say, as of today he falls short of our Notability guidelines therefore not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. However, we would welcome him here as an editor. He seems to have a talent for writing. Best of luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the creator of this article: please provide the references mentioned in the discussion page: "He has also been honored by Georgia Southern University, the University of Georgia, and the United States Army. There are articles about him in the Army Times, Stars and Stripes, and other notable publications." I clearly can see how this person is noticeable (he is a real hero!) but references must be provided to meet Notability guidelines. I hope we can rescue this article.--Jmundo (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More than willing to change opinion once sources are provided and reviewed. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you ShoesssS. I am unable to find any sources on my own, but if there are some out there, this article would be good to go. TN‑X-Man 19:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This resume in no way indicates notability of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks non-notable to me. A good soldier, but there are a lot of those. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable except for locally. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no outstanding military achievements, no other notable achievments. Is being honoured by a uni football team enough to confer notability? Somehow I don't think so. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Banks[edit]

Dubious biographical info (born in '72, a BMX championship in '80?; IMDB lists no "James Banks" in the cast of Unbreakable), but even if everything on the page is true, lacking in notability. bd2412 T 07:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing notable there, unless substantial details added. Delete it. TheFeds 08:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of name dropping, but nothing that is actually verifiable. The unbreakable credit probably means he was an extra (if he was actually in it). I can't verify the BMX title (youth version or otherwise) in paper sources (LexisNexis) which certainly would make the news and his connection to the NFL player can't be verified either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did this have to be relisted? There's nothing here but a huge number of spelling and grammar errors. Hoax. A guy and his buddies (just look through the history). Drmies (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. One could not be a human and not feel the pain for this individual. That there was news coverage is perfectly understandable, provided the sensational emotional impact of the story. However, that does not make this person the subject of ongoing notability. We say "notability is not temporary"; we often use that to counter arguments that because a person has not received new coverage lately, that their previously notable article should not be deleted. But in this case, use it as a litmus test: would this individual still be known (were it not for a wikipedia article), in say 5 or 10 years, based on the coverage he has received so far? WP:ONEEVENT addresses this concern well. The non-SPA wikipedians who responded to this AFD contributed to the clear consensus that this individual is not notable, at least not yet. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dong yun yoon[edit]

This article is about a person who may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. If he is notable, he may only be notable for one event. The article was originally problematic because it appeared to be written in an overtly sympathetic tone and gave an address for donations; this can be cleaned up. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. WP is not a memorial page, and this article is written as little more than a eulogy. DMacks (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge any useful references. This is the guy whose family was killed in the recent Miramar F-18 crash. As it stands, he's been the subject of many national/international news reports, because of his association with this incident. Depending on the resolution of the crash investigation, and any legal processes, it's possible that this person may gain further notability in the near future. I'm in agreement regarding cleaning up the sympathetic tone, though. For now, this is probably best covered in the existing article; if he gains notability, he may merit his own article later on. TheFeds 08:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out Wikipedia:Merge and delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment: essay does not apply; editor said merge references, not content. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would support keeping this article. In reading the original version, I agree that the address for letters/donations is not appropriate for Wikipedia. But, this story is quite newsworthy and any article about the lone survivor will sound somewhat like a eulogy, though I think it's more than that. The original author was indeed unbiased when discussing all viewpoints about the media coverage of Mr. Yoon - some say enough, some say not enough. I'd say clean up the technical aspects like the weblinks, but I'm ok with including it, particularly when I look at the myriad of "athletes" and "actors" that are very obscure and arguably not newsworthy themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.8.233.211 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.8.233.211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge into 2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash. The incident may be notable, but the person has no independent notability beyond that. PC78 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I read the entry and felt concern for the individual, however, it seems to be little less than what one would obtain in a family conversation or local newspaper. I am having difficulty in discovering the necessary source material or national importance for the individual. I noted the remark made by an unsigned editor in that there are far too many pieces on unimportant sports people. However by adding this piece it would only make two wrongs. Royalhistorian (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with "Feds" above that legal matters would trigger even more interest, but if no legal action occurs, it's even more newsworthy due to this man's forgiving nature, sentiments aside. Agree the original entry was too sentimental - in fact I did the favor of eliminating the neighbor's comments. But a separate article for Yoon should meet objective news criteria. An F-18 crashing into a home is not an everyday occurrence, which is why it is newsworthy. But, the comments by Yoon are also not an everyday occurrence, which is why Yoon himself is newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffybear (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Fluffybear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep (comments from original author): I thank you Richard for your insightful opinion and to all who have taken time out to comment on this topic. Certainly I can understand the concerns of too much empathy. However, I would support a separate article because Mr. Yoon himself has been newsworthy to a rather substantial degree. I feel there is a difference between eulogizing versus admiring. A simple google search would result in many intriguing links regarding the legal implications/potential blame, and his subsequent actions or lack of actions, which were so non-typical that they generated many news stories. I would emphasize that many discussions are about him, not about the actual incident. Such would not be the case if only the crash had taken place. It was Mr. Yoon himself that generated such interest. Since Wikipedia is for the readership of society at large, I hope this article is kept to acknowledge the fact that, eulogies aside, so many people have indeed talked about Mr. Yoon, which is, after all, what makes him newsworthy. I thank you all for this opportunity to discuss and for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillynight (talk • contribs) 03:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Chillynight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge to [[2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash]. The subject has no notability aside from this one news event. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Whpq and WP:1E. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing about him specifically that is notable. Oneevent is meant to apply in exactly this sort of circumstance, of someone being the victim of a tragic accident. I would not merge to the crash, because I have doubts of it being notable either. DGG (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--for non-notability, one-eventness, memorial, etc. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~'''Keep (additional comments)'''~~: I would like to respond to the statements that this is not newsworthy due to being "one event." I feel that one event is indeed newsworthy, if the news picks it up and it generates...news. Caylee Anthony is one event. Many, many children are missing for horrible reasons, and very few ever make it to Wikipedia. Why did Caylee Anthony make it? Frankly, because for whatever reason, it became very newsworthy, and I certainly feel Caylee belongs in Wikipedia, whether fair or unfair to the myriad of other missing children. How about John Ogonowski? Does anyone know him? He was one of the pilots in the 9-11 crashes, American Airlines. He has an entry in Wikipedia. So does Stephen Siller, one of the firemen, who did what many other firemen did. I have no problem with them being in Wikipedia, I think they should be. My only argument is that if they are, then certainly, Dong Yun Yoon should be too. There are many examples of far less notable one-time events, outside of 9-11 or Caylee Anthony: How about Allen Campbell - a trainer who was killed by an elephant (a one time event). He has a wikipedia entry, and there is no "debate" going on about his entry. I can list so many more. People get "nominated" to appear on Wikipedia, because for some reason, somebody felt compelled to write an entry about them. Not every fireman from 9-11 is in Wikipedia. Why Siller? Because somebody took the time to nominate him for Wikipedia. I am not a friend, relative, acquaintance, or anything of that matter to Dong Yun Yoon. He just happens to be very newsworthy to me, and certainly so many others, which is why this article should be kept. The internet has allowed for more information to be available to the public, and Wikipedia is a direct result of the internet age. Not everything is newsworthy to everyone, but Wikipedia allows for those differences to be recognized. Sure, if a google search for "Dong Yun Yoon" resulted in "not found," I can see where an argument can be made. But Dong Yun Yoon has, because of HIS actions, become newsworthy to many people, and this should be respected and acknowledged, not because of sympathy, but because he is newsworthy to them.Chillynight (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— chillynight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: the crash may have been notable but not a relative of persons who died who was not involved in the incident. 16x9 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Constitution of Canada#Vandalism of the paper proclamation. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Greyson[edit]

Only seems to be notable for this one event. Wikipedia is not a news site, and people included should be notable for more than one thing. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Ray (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I note that the content of the Greyson article exists in the article on the Canadian Constitution. TheFeds 06:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. According to WikiBlame, the entry on Greyson in the constitution article predates the one up here for discussion, so technically it could be deleted without violating the GFDL, but unless someone can think of another notable Peter Greyson, I think a redirect is useful to the reader. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom (good call, too). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am having difficulty in finding any true notability or any national or secondary source material. Royalhistorian (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried searching in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but I have not found anything to indicate that Greyson was notable for anything outside of this one event. Like Mgm, though, I think a redirect would be potentially helpful to readers. I recommend redirect to Constitution of Canada#Vandalism of the paper proclamation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constitution of Canada#Vandalism of the paper proclamation - Peter Greyson has achieved nothing notable apart from the one incident. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Totnesmartin. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Totnesmartin on the off-chance that somebody may be searching for Peter Greyson. Beyond that, there's no evidence of notability. freshacconci talktalk 15:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Society[edit]

I'm not certain that this organization meets the notability criteria, and the article itself lacks independent, reliable sources that would verify the group's notability. I tried searching using google, but there seem to be a number of organizations that use this name; I can't verify the importance of this particular group. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to locate any sources of information about this organization independent of the organization itself that would verify the organization's notability. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete I don't know what kind of search you did, but there is only one organization with that exact name. There is an American Constitution Society, and a Society for Constitutional Information from the early 1700s in England that was sometimes referred to that way, but there should be no confusion. The Society is most noted as a publisher, so most cites are to its publications rather than to the Society by its name. We consider an author notable when there are many cites to his writings, even if his name isn't mentioned, so it would seem reasonable to consider a publisher notable for the same reason, especially when cited indirectly by many Wikipedia editors. It also organizes and conduct events, but each such event is known by its own name. Many notable organizations operate that way. You have to backtrack a few steps to find their names.I also object to such a sudden deletion without more of an effort than you apparently made, and while the original author is still in the early stages of writing the article, and while he is asking for others to join in and contribute. I know about the sandbox but it should be possible to create stubs and make development of the article a community effort. Uncoverer (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Undelete" is not useful, as this article has not been deleted, and won't be unless the community agrees that it is about an organization that does not meet the notability criteria. You may be confusing this article with the one that was speedily deleted, not because of a notability problem, but because of a copyright problem. What's needed are reliable, independent sources, like magazines, newspapers, or online journals, that discuss this organization's importance- if you could add two or three such sources, there'll be no need for deletion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most convincing evidence of notability that I am aware of so far are video or audio recordings of public events at which the Constitution Society was noted by name. They occurred in the Nov. 20-22 timeframe and are not yet all online for someone to verify, but a few have been put online:

C-SPAN video archive.
Federalist Society audio recording, video to follow.
Federalist Society audio recording, video to follow.

Let's make a deal here. Keep pending the availability of the evidence online, which I will watch for and note when it arrives. In the meantime, I will encourage others to look and cite. Uncoverer (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is the substantial media coverage? Are there two good stories about the subject in there? I'm having trouble finding them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consider them notable, at least as the online publisher of the [Liberty Library http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.html], a very valuable compilation of PD sources--regardless of the political views of those who have done the compiling. Possibly there may be sources on that, to re-orient the article a little. DGG (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a publisher it acquires its notability from its publications, which are notable and in many cases unique, and which are often cited throughout Wikipedia. It also appears that cites to the Society are made to its domain constitution.org , rather than to the organization name, perhaps because that is easier for people to remember, and it seems to encourage that practice. It also seems to encourage the formation of local groups that function like chapters but don't adopt "Constitution Society" as part of their names, and are highly autonomous. Bracton (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Tiptoety ^talk 05:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ribbon Days[edit]

Previously prod-ed, non notable company. Google search only turns up ~400 hits. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,840,000 for red ribbon days. (0.14 seconds) Ribboners (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? Drmies (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is marketing, nothing more. And results 1-10? They're about red ribbon days, not about Red Ribbon Days. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo Joe's fourth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eskimo Joe's fourth studio album

Per WP:HAMMER. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Stand back folks, it's Hammertime! MuZemike (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the band's main article until there's enough info for a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 19:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a crystal hammer. B.Wind (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-Wayne: He Rap, He Sing[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, album has no release date and just mentioned around by the artists. Previously deleted Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe G4. WP:CRYSTAL either way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G4. Maybe recreate when more is known. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 02:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's crystal, it's unverifiable, it's Hammertime! Nate • (chatter) 03:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified crystal balling. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He raps, he sings... we delete! Definitely a case of crystal balling. B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Imposter (Skye Sweetnam album)[edit]

Nothing is known about this album at all. The "reference" is the artist's MySpace page and it lists absolutely nothing about this album. Google isn't helpful either, either way (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, go the crystal ball. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 19:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang caseadilla[edit]

Topic is not encyclopedic, too narrow, and unlikely to ever become a full Wikipedia article. Mr. Darcy talk 00:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons self-evident. JuJube (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a contested prod. --Call me Bubba (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or even redirect to Napoleon Dynamite if the closing admin is feeling adventurous enough. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per above. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Patent original research. Wily D 22:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Totally uncited analysis of importance and meaning of a single phrase of dialog. If it's really that important, there will be oodles of RS from film critics as the film itself is quite popular. DMacks (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to LOL. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LMFAO[edit]

not notable; fails WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LOL. JuJube (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If not deleted, that sounds good to me. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being signed to Interscope is the only reason I'd deny an A7. Then redirect to LOL per above. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason the articles in The Source and DJbooth—both articles being solely about this group, albeit short—and the not-nontrivial, although not particularly significant, coverage in the LA Times are not sufficient to grant notability? They're signed to a major record label, and the aforementioned coverage grants them notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Very trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, return to redirect to LOL Hijacked redirect to LOL for a non-notable band. Salt it so it stays that way. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--not notable, despite the appearance of having sources to provide notability. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect back to LOL - non-notable band. Per Mrschimpf above, protect LMFAO. Matt (Talk) 07:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would remove the history of the article for the dates prior to when the redirect was put in place. If any deletion is going to take place, it should be selective. (personally I think reinstating the redirect and protecting it would be a better alternative if the choice is removal). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain because there are articles to establish WP:MUS notability which says only ONE of the 12 criteria need to be met and criteria 1 is met in the page. Snoopyloopy (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which one? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forever And Always (Caleigh Peters album)[edit]

Debut album which doesn't seem to have any confirmation yet. The only reference provides nothing about the album. The Google search here doesn't help either. There's nothing to support this being a confirmed album or that it is going to be a notable album. either way (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unconfirmed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crystal balling. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 19:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmith (comics)[edit]

Deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia as a hoax, see http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual&curid=515303&diff=18827011&oldid=18826179. Google on Amunet Black seems to get only material based on the Wikipedia article. Andre Engels (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a hoax, see this. Not sure if it's notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recurring character in several DC Comics series. Satisfies initial notability criteria for comic book characters -- it's certainly not a hoax. 23skidoo (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The character certainly exists and isn't a hoax, though she's not the most notable villain in the DC universe.--A ni Mate 22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment It appears the article is not a hoax but I think there should be more discussion on the character's notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major character in major comics. Perhaps the discussion could be shortened, but thats a normal sort of editing that a great many of there articles need. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to combining articles on some of these characters, but that';s another discussion too. DGG (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with above editor -- Jubelum (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bang[edit]

PROD tag removed; only claim of notability is a championship in a nonnotable wrestling organization. Unsourced. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know why I bothered, but I tried to clean it up. Not notable, no references, no grammar (yeah, I know, that's not relevant, but you try edit that). Drmies (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blueboy 96 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Mind-blowingly non-notable--a grand total of 22 Yahoo hits. If wasn't for Drmies' attempt to clean this up, this would be G1-able. Blueboy 96 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the prod should have never been removed, thus we continue to play musical chairs and waste more time. JBsupreme (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googlefamous[edit]

Dicdef, neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable neologism. No reason to transwiki to Wiktionary. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lastingsmilledge and TenPoundHammer. Xihr 01:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Yeah, pretty much a WP:MADEUP WP:NEO. MuZemike (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable protologism. — neuro^(talk) 01:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ironically enough, this term is not googlefamous, receiving no GHits other than the wikipedia article and the answers.com mirror. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though it is Googlefamous, it's simply unverifiable. Can't be included in a collaborative encyclopaedia written by non-authorities. Wily D 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YLOD[edit]

Unremarkable article John Collier (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as how-to. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A how-to article, not to mention the man from Mars cannot readily understand after three seconds what the article is about. What? PlayStation? What's that? MuZemike (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, I thought Zoids were trivial. Yes, a manual, of no value. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the YLOD is well documented and is as notable as the BSOD on Windows. It's not a how-to guide. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well-documented? If blogs and MySpace counts, yes. But the references to the article are just that, blogs and videos, and I've not found anything beyond it (yes, I looked). I'll gladly be proven wrong. And the article, well, it IS a manual on how to fix it ("The are several ways to fix the system..."), and then a description of the other lights and what they're for ("The red light, when illuminated, shows that the system is currently on standby mode."). That is seriously not encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into PS3 - Merge what can be saved into the main PS3 article then delete. No more notable than the 'ring of death' or what have you that 360s suffer. At least the blue screen of death does have more of a cultural edge these days (Being used in comedy and general society references) while console related technical faults are hardly main stream society fodder and don't receive the third party coverage to really warrant their own article. It will never grow beyond much of a stub. Also, I'd be pretty suprised if Sony charged someone in the UK 150 dollars or such. Seems like it was written based on someone's personal experience or chatting to mates. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help! Tried to merge it into the PlayStation article, and I need to know where it goes, and SOURCES! Yeah, I got most of the info out already, if you want to delete this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elm-39 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references provided are not WP:RS, therefore article fails basic WP:V policy. Marasmusine (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Krief[edit]

Footballer who has not played a league game for a team competing in a fully professional league. CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE (and has been deleted twice via prod for the same reason). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Number57. Giant Snowman 17:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much to find on the internet, I did notice that he was classed a fully paid pro at Southport, but that's it. Govvy (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league, although there are one or two newspaper headlines to be found about him. Bettia (rawr!) 12:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep). Serious concerns with sourcing for context to establish notability still exist; this article should be improved and re-evaluated after a reasonable period of time is allowed forsuch improvement. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FoodMayhem[edit]

WP:NOTABILITY. One mention in an article about blogs does not meet notability requirements. KelleyCook (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley, I respectfully disagree. As mentioned in initial article content, blog has been featured on a well known area television show, as well as on their web site. It has been featured by Blogger. And then, it has received multiple mentions (you said only 'one'). The two mentions I listed are from the most notable publications New York Magazine and Village Voice, but there are dozens of others. --LonB (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A television show isn't a reliable source usually. Featured by Blogger isn't a real assertation of notability. If you can provide links to the mentions, it'd probably help. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some background on why television coverage isn't reliable? That seems fairly notable. The links of notable mentions are in the primary article. --LonB (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it can't be easily verified, besides maybe a link to a transcript of the show? Furthermore, just getting local coverage is nothing. They once wrote an article about me in my local paper, does that mean I'm notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be facetious: you got a Wikipedia policy named for you. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, you've gotten to the core of the issue, which is that notability is subjective. All we can do is try to follow the wikipedia guidelines. I can point to the fact that the show that featured FoodMayhem is in itself notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Which I just read and it mentions that the show has won three emmys and has a sister program in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LonB (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, notability is quite objective. Not as objective as a calorie count, I'll grant you that, but hardly as subjective as one's 'opinion.' Drmies (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In additional response to initial question of notability, I have added information to the primary article about notable media distribution, which directly meets the web content notability guidelines. This web content is distributed by many notable publishers including Chefs.com, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters --LonB (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources are trivial mentions, no substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ten Pound Hammer's comments is not true. (1) Primary source has won three emmys and featured the site in question. (2) The notability guideline also says a site is considered notable for any one of the three criteria, the third of which is "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher..." As already stated (and primary article updated to reflect) is the case for site in question. It is distributed via multiple well respected online newspapers, independent of creators. --LonB (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources' notability isn't in question. The scope is in question. In other words, the sources don't devote significant attention to the site. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so on the question of whether the source is relevant, we agree that the source is notable. The remaining question is whether it's significant. The source did a phone interview with the two authors of the site, then posted a web page, and did a full segment on its television show about the site. What more could the source have done to be significant"? Also, let's not lose track that even if the source was not significant, which it is, the article absolutely meets the other criteria mentioned above (for media distribution). --LonB (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep LonB makes a good case for its notability. Also, FoodMayhem is a pretty popular NY food blog. Yes, that's my anecdotal evidence, but google seems to agree - it's #3 when you google "new york food blog", FWIW (which may not be much I admit) --Bobbyrullo (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These references are trivial, and the authors are clutching at straws trying to mold Wikipedia policy and fairly objective standards of notability and scope to ensure that the article fits the bill. It does not. I mean, I wish them the best, but the blog is not notable enough for inclusion here. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, as you have demonstrated twice above that you don't follow instructions (per Ron's request to keep new comments below his notice, I'm not sure how much value your comments have. In a more logical discussion, I appreciate your input (as well as anyone else's) on this topic; however, simply saying something is trivial doesn't make it trivial. I'd like to rebut your comment but you didn't say anything objective, you've incited subjectivity. Can you perhaps provide factual backup for your comments? Thanks. --LonB (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need a lesson in following instructions from you, thank you very much. Saying something is notable doesn't make it so; the burden of proof is on you--I'm sorry, on the objective author of any article, who should do their best to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. This blog is a blog, and it's mentioned on some other blogs. Blogs are by definition user-submitted material, and are therefore not automatically notable. What's more, blogging invites self-aggrandization, for instance, in the entry on bloggerschoice awards, where we see that indeed, FoodMayhem has been nominated for best food blog! It was nominated by a blogger named LonB (really), and received one vote. Then, the blog was tagged by NYMag--once, along with seven others (and to call that 'referenced,' and to leave out the other 'referenced' blogs, is a bit facetious to say the least). By now, I'm on page 3 of my list of google hits for "FoodMayhem." Blogcatalog, Bloggapedia, Blogtoplist, Eatbrooklynfood.blogspot, Blogrankers--I could go on, and so does Google, for pages and pages without ever generating a hit one might call significant, independent, or in-depth. And I went through a dozen pages, and a dozen pages for "Food Mayhem." Nothing but mentions and rankings. So, Blogger mentions FoodMayhem--sure, but they have a blog of note every single day of the year.

Hey, I'm not sure how much 'value' my comments have either, but there is no need for you to resort to name-calling. Not logical? Inciting subjectivity? Pff. You can rebut my and other comments by providing proof of notability as required per Wikipedia:Notability (web). BTW, I made some small corrections to the article, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and Wikipedia:cleanup. Good luck to you, sir. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cool in the Code coverage is definitely not wikt:trivial. Other sources are. Nonetheless, scrapes by WP:N by the skin of its teeth. Not spammy or any other such problem, information is definitely verifiable. With no substantial concerns, borderline notability, and a useful article, there's no need for deletion here. Wily D 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable blog and the few bits of coverage are highly trivial. 16x9 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoreSteam[edit]

Finishing unfinished nom. Reads like copyvio too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not explain how the company is notable (WP:N). As this is a new article, I did a quick check on Google News, but there were no hits. A general search (I tried +"moresteam" +"ohio") shows plenty of press releases and directory entries. Marasmusine (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the page a bit to emphasize the fact that MoreSteam has led the online training movement for LEan Six Sigma. I would be very open to more ideas on how to make this more notable than that and the connection to ASQ certification, which is considered the defacto standard for LEan Six Sigma professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligoldman (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of record labels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This list is grossly unhelpful as there are potentially hundreds-of-thousands of record labels and only a handful have been excluded in this list. This list does little more than a category does and is incomplete. WP:SALAT says: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." The "List of record labels" list is extremely too broad and too incomplete. For example, lets say I start a recording company in my basement for a couple of garage bands in my neighborhood. That's a record label, right? Anyway, if we limit it to just record labels who just have Wikipedia articles, we are essentually doing the same thing a category already does, besides, how long would it take for other non-notable labels to sneek in there. Anyway, I think you get the point... Tavix (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I also nominated the following articles for the same reason:

Note: The Category:Record labels has all of these labels on them, and way more. Tavix (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and rename List of record labels to Lists of record labels. Judging as to whether a record label is verifiable should be left to those who edit the articles. I will also challenge that these lists are not indiscriminate and that most seem to be manageable. Also, categories and lists can coexist per guidelines (more reading on that is here). MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep all It looks that we do limit them to ones with Wikipedia articles; there is no rule that we cannot duplicate a category and a list, and even when they provide the identical material, there is no reason why we should delete the list unless there is some specific reason to object to it. Just saying they duplicate is a non-argument. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER. (I do think the opportunity of having the lists should be taken to annotate the entries, to show at least country and dates of existence--this seems so far to have rarely been done--but that';s an editing question.)DGG (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, simply because it's unclear to me what has changed since the last nomination. I don't have a strong opinion about it, though. For the record, I'm not the creator of the list. This list is ancient in Wikipedia time; I'm just the first edit recorded when we switched wiki software. --Stephen Gilbert (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. I don't see what has changed since the last nom. Furthermore, this is a monstrous bundle afd, which is generally frowned upon. I don't see what is so unmaintainable about these, as red link labels can quite easily be bopped. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bucking the trend here - these lists don't appear to satisfy any of the advantages of lists given at WP:CLN#Advantages of lists, and are essentially redundant to the many subcategories of Category:Record labels:
1. Exploratory browsing - categories function just as well in this regard.
2. Formatting - these lists are unformatted, and there's no sensible way to format them that'd be useful.
3. Easier to fill - filling these categories doesn't appear to have been a problem in practice.
4. Can be annotated - there's generally no annotation in these lists.
5. Can be searched - but article titles are even easier to search for.
6. Can be referenced - membership in this list is trivial and doesn't need referencing.
7. Can include unlinked items - if a label is insufficiently notable to have an article, it's probably insufficiently notable to include on this list.
8. Can be manually sorted - they're sorted alphabetically already, which is the exact same way that categories work
9. Can be linked to article sections - but this list doesn't, so nope.
10. Can include invisible links to discussion pages - wait, this isn't frowned upon as a cross-namespace link?
11. Can be more easily edited - not an overriding concern.
12. Can include images - nope
13. Can include templates - nope
14. Can include non-notable entries - see "unlinked items" above.

Categories are a powerful tool, and take a lot less maintenance than lists do. Unless there's some huge advantage to this list that I'm missing, it seems entirely redundant to me - the fact that it was started before categories were available is probably the only reason it exists at all. This one can go away now, just as List of people by name went away last year. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wealth of difference between saying that something does not contain these features and saying it cannot contain them. Currently, these lists do not contain images, links to article sections, annotations and the like, but that's not the question. The question is, could they include them, and would doing so make these more than a simple category? The answer to that is "Certainly, yes". Also, your "unlinked items" comment goes against what is usual practice, which is that redlinks exist in such lists to indicate articles not yet written which could be. That is, the case is not "if a label is insufficiently notable to have an article, it's probably insufficiently notable to include on this list", but rather "if a label is notable enough for an article but doesn't have one yet, should its name still be noted somewhere. Again, the answer to that is "certainly, yes." (Keep) Grutness...wha? 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm pretty sure we couldn't use images - the only images that'd be relevant would be logos or album covers, and I don't believe that either would satisfy the fair-use criteria in this context. Unlinked items are a fair point in some other lists, but here, it's difficult to determine whether an entry belongs if there's no article to back it. (Indeed, as Lugnuts notes below, there's an active effort to remove entries which are redlinks.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment on the images and the redlinks, but my comments still basically stand. A major reason why lists are preferred in some cases over categories is the ability to annotate. I can definitely see these lists being tidied to include location and style of music, given that many labels are specialist labels - e.g., "Foo Records (Italy; Jazz)"., and also whether the label is a subsidiary of another label. It may even be possible to turn them into sortable tables, so that each can be sorted by location, say, if a toggle on the top of the column is clicked. Grutness...wha? 10:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists of lists are allowed, and these lists are well-maintained, discriminate, and certainly notable. Themfromspace (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The category Record labels should have no articles in it, and as a result, all labels are sub-cat'd by country, genre, year of establishment and a few other things. Yes, there are hundreds and thousands of labels world-wide, but the inclusion on these lists (and WP in general) is that they are NOTABLE. I've been very active in ensuring that non-notable links (and linkspam) are removed. Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was about to agree with Zetawoof until I noticed how the categories were used. There's no way to browse record labels alphabetically if these lists go. Still, it's easy for non-notable entries to sneak in here because of the sheer size... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a good case for reorganizing the categories, then. Current practice discourages including an article in both a category and a parent category, but it might be worth reconsidering this practice in some cases if the alternative is to recreate the "virtual contents" of the parent category in list form. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that would be a bigger issue that would affect all elements of WP, in terms of cat'ing an article, rather than a specific issue affecting these lists. Lugnuts (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the easier option be to make a category tool that shows all contents of subcategories alphabetically? That retains the current subcategorizations and avoids having to categorize things into parent articles just to get an alphabetic list. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would also be an excellent approach. Has anybody looked into doing this? (Does it already exist?) Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the A-Z lists, as Mgm points out they function as an alphabetical index of record labels, which the category system doesn't do (and so Zetawolf is wrong about #8). But it seems a pity to have to do it manually, if the intention is a non-annoted index of all labels in the category, it should be easy to automate. The other lists do look redundant unless someone wants to improve them. Juzhong (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST Ijanderson (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful navigational structure, thusly important to our efforts to build an encyclopaedia. Categories do not, cannot duplicate lists. WilyD 22:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple question: If there were a category with the same contents, or a tool which displayed the contents of all the existing categories in a combined format, would this change your vote? Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. This type of list has value to users and helps in building the encyclopedia in ways that a category could not. Unlike categories, lists include redlinks and annotations, and they visible to users who are unaware of the existence of categories. --Orlady (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Record labels are an encyclopedic topic, and lists are both useful to users and an aid in creating and maintaining the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John/Taupin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John/Taupin

Redundant to Bernie Taupin#Collaboration with Elton John. Unsourced to boot, nothing to merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be turned into a discography for the songwriting team? Powers ^T 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Songs written by Bernie Taupin, which covers most of the same ground. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that article doesn't indicate which ones were composed by Elton John, which is the salient point of the John/Taupin article. Powers ^T 14:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be properly sourced that is an idea. WP:ARS? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This link shows that "John/Taupin" probably could be maintained as a separate article. However, as TPH points out, John/Taupin is unsourced and we already have Bernie Taupin#Collaboration with Elton John as a place for information on John/Taupin. Should there be an interest in creating a sourced John/Taupin article, then interested editors can grow the Bernie Taupin article with sourced material and create a new article per Wikipedia:Summary style. The closer may redirect and/or merge any valuable information into Bernie Taupin as needed. -- Suntag ☼ 14:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being redundant. Tavix (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.